The Council talked about how they chose an alternate direction to get the Omni Hotel built. Maybe they can come up with an alternate plan for the streetcars.
I just did a quick google search on what it cost to build Bass Hall. According to one website it was approx $50 million. This is in 1990s dollars which, according to this
Cost of Living Calculator (uses Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers as its source)is approx $71.5 million on 2010 dollars when one factors in currency inflation. Bass Hall was built entirely with private contributions.
If Bass Hall could be built for the equivalent of today's $71.5 million through private contributions, why can't a streetcar system be built with private contributions for $85 million?
One more tidbit of local history to consider as well: Leonards/Tandy for DECADES operated a private streetcar system - in a SUBWAY, no less. And, along with that, they maintained a very large parking lot and did not charge a dime for either the parking or for fare on the subway. The parking lot and the subway tunnel were on their own private property - which my strong guess is Leonards/Tandy paid property taxes on each year.
If a private, for profit retailer could operate a popular system of streetcars with very frequent stops from early morning to fairly late into the evening most days of the week plus a parking lot for decades on very expensive downtown real estate without charging for it - well, why couldn't a private
non-profit (i.e, tax exempt) organization do the exact same thing using right of way on existing streets
donated by the city?
To me, this has always struck me as a better approach to something like this.
I don't think it something like this could be accomplished without active and enthusiastic help from the City. The City would need to basically grant free use of the right of way on its streets for it to be viable to build. But so what? It would have had to do essentially that if it had built the line itself.
Of course, Leonards built the subway and operated it because it brought customers to its store and Tandy continued to do so because it provided a very convenient parking solution to employees who worked in its headquarters. But if a similar system were built today, it too could provide those exact same benefits to a
multitude of businesses both in downtown and the areas the line would go outside of downtown. And, because the benefits of a new line being spread out across a multitude of companies, so could the cost.
Why not go back to the drawing board and see if there could be ways to cut start up costs on building the thing and modifications that could be made for it to have a more short term economic viability?
For example, one of the things that made the Tandy subway viable was it provided a parking solution. My guess is there are quite a number of downtown businesses small and large would could benefit by providing their employees additional parking options. Why not build parking lots on the edge of downtown - both north and south - and have special dedicated streetcars that operate on an express basis strictly between the lots and downtown during morning and evening rush hour? Businesses that are dues paying members of the non-profit organization that operates the thing would be able to issue their employees/customers ID Cards/single use tokens that would give them free use of the system (or perhaps reduced price use if the business had a more modest membership level). That aspect of the system would essentially work just like the Tandy Subway did except its benefits and costs would be spread across many businesses instead of just one. (People like me who might use the system only on the rare occasion when he has specific need to go downtown could be charged a per use fare - unlike the Tandy Subway which I rode on occasion for free but would have been willing to pay a modest fare simply because it was more convenient than finding a daytime parking spot downtown)
Same thing with regard to developers who build along the route. Those who are dues paying members of the non-profit would be entitled to provide free use of the system to their customers. For example, apartment complexes/condos could offer free fares to residents. Restaurants who are members would be entitled to issue a free single use token to any customer who buys a meal and requests one. Retail establishments could issue one to any customer who buys over a certain threshold.
Furthermore, the various businesses that would be dues paying members of the organization would be entitled to vote on selecting the board that operates the thing and perhaps on certain policy scenarios - and the number of votes a business gets would be in proportion to the dues it pays. Those who benefit the most from the thing would be charged higher membership dues - but they would also get a proportionally greater say-so in the organization.
Perhaps an agreement could be worked out to mutual benefit with The T to sell and honor passes for The T - with the non-profit getting a small reimbursement for its portion of the customers' trip.
If there
is existing TIF money and it is indeed true it would not impact the general fund, then perhaps some of that could be used to make the street upgrades needed to accommodate such a system. After all, the City
already is responsible for maintaining the streets - this would basically be a one time upgrade to them.
If the City could pay to upgrade the street/bridge infrastructure, then that would presumably lower the necessary cost for the non-profit to come up with below the $85 million price tag. And it certainly would lower the City's cost below the $85 million.
In other words, the City could basically
help the effort by granting free use of its right of way and perhaps paying for all or some of the necessary upgrades to it's infrastructure. That would be of significant help in terms of getting the thing off the ground. The non-profit could then focus on raising support and money for stuff like purchasing the equipment and operating the thing on an ongoing basis. If the non-profit failed or lost money then the taxpayers would not be out anything other than the one time road upgrades which could be potentially used in the future by some other operator that might come along.
My thought is the City could essentially approach it this way: Determine what it would cost on a per mile/per bridge, etc. basis to upgrade its right of way to accommodate such a system IF some other entity were willing to operate a streetcar system on it. If the City determines it is in a position to pay for that much, then it could take a vote to offer full consideration to ANYONE who comes forth and offers a plan that is credible and viable. That would basically put the ball in the court of various interested parties to form an organization that would put such a proposal together. If such a proposal is put forth, the City could vote on the matter and make its portion of the deal - the infrastructure improvements - contingent upon the group having its share of funding raised and in place ahead of one dime of City funds being spent.
Why not at least explore and look into this possibility? Why on earth does the government have to run everything - and why must the taxpayers always pay for everything? If the streetcar will, indeed, bring the sort of economic benefits its promoters say it will, then presumably there will be certain individuals and businesses who will be in a position to benefit greatly from it financially - and who will NOT reap those benefits if the thing is never built. If so, then since the city will not be building the system, is it not in their own self-interest to band together with those who will similarly benefit and take the initiative to see if they can perhaps find a way to built it themselves? If the answer is no - that it is NOT in their self-interest to do so - then that tells me that perhaps the economic benefits its boosters are promoting are probably not very realistic (remember the Rail Market anyone?)to begin with. If one is not able to make the case that the thing will generate a credible financial benefit for those whose money is being donated and put at stake in the thing - then it is probably a good thing that the plug was pulled this evening. Perhaps those whose money would actually be at stake would be able to come up with something more viable. People are a LOT more realistic and practical and less Utopian when it is THEIR OWN money that is at stake then if they are spending other people's money.
Multiple streetcar lines were operated by private, tax paying, for profit entities for decades until the advent of the automobile and untaxed government subsidized highways and improved roads killed them off. Leonards/Tandy operated streetcars in its subway system for decades without charging a dime for the service. Bass Hall was built with entirely private contributions for not all that much less than the price tag quoted for the modern street car system. I don't think what I am proposing is all that unrealistic given that, unlike the other examples, it would be a tax exempt entity and would have at least SOME support from the city at least in terms of free right of way usage and PERHAPS free right of way improvement.
Personally, I think streetcars are COOL. I would LOVE to see such a system in Fort Worth. On the other hand I would almost NEVER ride the thing except perhaps on rare occasion as a tourist when I am showing the city to friends from out of town. I live on the Westside and my job is in the Dallas suburbs - I have zero practical need whatsoever for transit of any kind between the Southside and the Stock Yards. Still, I think they are COOL and would REALLY enjoy the trip I would certainly take on the thing if/when it opened. But there is a definite limit as to how much I am
personally willing to pay for such a trip to eventually become possible - and that isn't very much. A streetcar would be cool - but not THAT cool.
There are a LOT of REALLY cool things in this world that I would LOVE to have or be able to do. And, unfortunately, there are a great many such things that I am simply unable to afford. And if there is something that I think is SO cool that I want it REALLY badly and it is expensive - then my only alternative is to ask myself if there is anything I can do to bring in that extra amount of money or if there is something else I can cut back on in order to free up that money or if there is perhaps some way that I can have it for a lower price. If the answer is no - then, unfortunately, I don't get to have it. And the reality is that there are a lot of things I would enjoy having that I don't get to have. And when that happens, I CERTAINLY do not go out and demand that unwilling others be COMPELLED to provide it to me.
If the street car is REALLY that cool and is REALLY as beneficial as supporters say it will be and REALLY has that much community support behind it, then maybe its supporters need to look for a way to make it happen without having to spend the money of those citizens who have zero interest or need for the thing. And I think I have offered as viable a way as any - and certainly more reasonable and fair than using compulsion to make unwilling taxpayers to pay for the whole thing.
Anyhow, just an idea.
